A6 Rebooted

[Spitfire]

A 1951 poster for the Red Rose Euston to Liverpool train.

[NickB]

If the defence accepted that the 12.15 arrived in Liverpool about half an hour late there would be no need for witness evidence on that point. Also at the trial Hanratty said his train arrived in Liverpool at about 4.30, so there could further have been a consensus on which train it was.

However it appears the prosecution did not reveal the 6.00 timing of the last bus to Rhyl, so did not ask the pertinent question: 'How did he do everything in the time?'. This is a question Woffinden completely ignores, though he goes for an even later arrival. Foot at least attempts to answer it for the period before 10.20, but it is interesting that when Woffinden makes an estimate of his arrival at Euston he comes up with 10.45. And that assumes that he did not visit Anderson that morning, as she testified.

[Spitfire]

"The jury heard evidence about the train times from London Euston to Liverpool Lime Street (12.15pm arriving 4.45pm)"

This is from Section 185 of the 2002 Appeal.

Indeed it is Nick, but whether that is taken from the trial transcript directly is open to question.

Hawser says the "relevant train would have arrived in Liverpool at 4.43 pm".(para 160).

There is no mention of the train being late by anyone, nor any witness being called to prove that fact.

Foot also mentions that Hanratty thought his train stopped at Crewe. The 10.35 am train from Euston stopped at Crewe but Hanratty would have had to change trains there to get to Lime Street, so we can rule that one out.

I don't know where Woff has got his 11.37am train from.

If Hanratty had travelled from Euston to Liverpool on Thursday 24th August, then there was a through train which left Euston at 2.15pm, stopped at Crewe, and then arrived at Liverpool at 6.50pm.

[moste]

"The jury heard evidence about the train times from London Euston to Liverpool Lime Street (12.15pm arriving 4.45pm)"

This is from Section 185 of the 2002 Appeal.

So the jury had to decide.’Was Hanratty working to a very tight schedule, ‘ or the more likely scenario, ‘ did Hanratty spend the 1/2 an hour or so hoping to find the road somewhere off Scotland road, before returning to the town centre ,having his wash and brush up , having a bite in the cafe, then spontaneously on a whim, jumping on a coach to Rhyl at 6 o clock , just in the nick of time.


‘The Comet’.‘ The Palatine’ The Mancunian’ WOW! Great train spotting memories.

[NickB]

"The jury heard evidence about the train times from London Euston to Liverpool Lime Street (12.15pm arriving 4.45pm)"

This is from Section 185 of the 2002 Appeal.

[NickB]

I see what you mean - the 4.45 arrival in Foot should be 4.15.

There is a further complication in Woffinden. On page 163 he plumps for a completely different train that leaves at 11.37 and arrives at 4.54.

[Spitfire]

Nick, quite right that the bus for Rhyl left Liverpool at 6.00 pm (not 6.30pm as per my earlier post), but the timetable says that the 12.15 (The Red Rose) from Euston should arrive at Lime St at 4.15pm. Was there any evidence that this train was late and arrived at 4.45pm? If not, this would have given Hanratty an extra half hour to accomplish that which he said he did.

[NickB]

Foot claims that he took the 10.20. Woffinden disputes this, estimating that he did not even arrive at Euston until about 10.45 (page 121).

Hanratty goes into detail about how after he arrived at Euston he did lots of things waiting a long time for the train to arrive. This not only makes it even less possible for him to have got the 10.20, it also rules out the 10.35 because instead of waiting a long time for that he would have got the 10.20. Also (as Spitfire indicates) the 10.35 stopping train does not match his description - for example he remarked that they stopped at Crewe as if it were the only (or a rare) stop. Woffinden also points out that the 10.20 did not stop at Crewe.

So this leaves the 12.15. But if he did not arrive in Liverpool until 4.45 he could not have done all the things he claimed to have done there before getting on the bus that left at 6.00. (Which of course is why Foot wanted to believe he got the 10.20.)

[Spitfire]

I have just acquired access to the relevant timetables for the trains operating out of London over the period in question and have uploaded the relevant timetable above.

Foot says that there were three possible trains leaving Euston at 10.20, 10.35 and 12.15 which respectively arrived in Lime Street at 2.22pm, 3.25pm and 4.45pm.

However the timetable above would indicate that the 10.20 would arrive at 2.30pm, the 10.35 would arrive at 3.25pm (but this could not be Hanratty's train as it was not a direct service) and the 12.15 would arrive at 4.15pm which would have given Hanratty an extra half hour to do his many and varied tasks before getting on the Rhyl bus at 6.30pm.

I am aware that train timetables can be something of a work of fiction but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary we should assume that more or less the trains ran according to schedule.

[Graham]

The folder had been in Slack's possession for 6 months or more by the time Acott dropped in to see him. Did Acott know in advance that Slack had this folder? I'd be surprised. So why did Slack see fit to hand it over to Acott? Had he opened it and studied the contents and then decided to hand it over? I'm sure that Mr S was no great friend of the police.

Graham

[Graham]

I had to chuckle at this, Graham.

Cough - Michael "God's honest truth" Barrett - cough

Ooooh, Missus, I'm sure I don't know what you mean!!!

Graham

[caz]

...Hanratty was not particularly literate, so a 'diary of events' is unlikely...

I had to chuckle at this, Graham.

Cough - Michael "God's honest truth" Barrett - cough

[cobalt]

The idea that Basil Acott would have been thwarted in relation to evidence is fanciful; Slack was hardly going to make any argument about how the folder was obtained since it wasn’t his.

There was a legal problem with the A6 Case which had long been a point of discussion in trials preceding Hanratty’s: the reliability of eye witness testimony. CCTV and mobile phones with cameras have probably reduced this problem over the years but identification was acknowledged by legal commentators as a potential weakness in criminal cases.

Foot, Justice and even John Lennon highlighted the problems with the A6 Case and kept it in the public eye, but they did not create public disquiet: that had been voiced at the time of the verdict. If there was a shred of evidence from Hanratty’s folder which could have helped to bolster the case- such as his being some sort of sex maniac- then that would have been released into the public domain during the various enquiries and appeals.

[Alfie]

The idea that the police have extra evidence which is unable to be used for some legal technicality owes more to Hollywood than real life....with the incriminating evidence in Hanratty’s folder. Given the problems the A6 Case has caused the legal establishment I think we can rest assured that were there anything damning in the folder then it would have seen the light of day.

Whether the evidence was admissible or not may have depended on how the police came by it. And after Hanratty's conviction there was hardly a need for it.

In actual fact, the case made little impact on the "legal establishment". Rather, the campaign by Justice, Foot et al made the case a political problem for the government of the day at various times, to which it was more or less responsive, and which resulted in the reviews, inquiries etc by Nimmo, Hawser and the CCRC. All of which ended up confirming Hanratty's guilt.

[Graham]

Cobalt, IIRC the prosecution claimed that the Six had been playing cards on a train, either to or from Birmingham, and that the cards yielded fingerprints which belonged to the Six. However, the person in charge of the forensic investigation was apparently in error. Also, again IIRC, the cards were checked for DNA, none of which matched the Six. This case seems to have fallen out of favour of 'amateur' crime investigators, perhaps just as well.

Well, we can only speculate what was in that folder. But as you say its contents don't appear to have been considered helpful to either the prosecution or the defence. If indeed the defence ever saw it.

Graham